- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-589/23: Action brought on 24 September 2023 — UA v Frontex
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0589
62023TN0589
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
Series C
C/2023/1307
11.12.2023
(Case T-589/23)
(C/2023/1307)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: UA (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Kila, lawyers)
Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the implied decision of the Agency, by which it refused to invite the applicant for a second interview allowing her the possibility to be timely recruited for the position of the European Border and Coast Guard Officer, Standing Corps intermediate level in Frontex and, thus, ultimately rejecting her application;
—annul the decision of 16 June 2023 of the Executive Director, by which the complaint of 30 January 2023 of the applicant against the implied decision of the Agency was rejected as inadmissible; and,
—order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the recruitment notice and of the principle of legal certainty.
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.
3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of transparency and good administration, and more specifically lack of sufficient and adequate reasoning.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1307/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)